Wednesday, October 5th, 2022 17:31:14

Traumatised Secularists

Updated: October 11, 2014 3:21 pm

SECULARISTS were in a state of shock. The media was mad at him. Every traumatised torch-bearer of the holy faith of sarva-secular-dharma-sama-bhaava was baying for his communal blood. Satiricus is talking about abominable Adityanath, the BJP leader who came up with some unforgivably anti-secular statistics. He had said : “In places where there are 10 to 20 per cent minorities, stray communal incidents take place; where there are 20 to 35 per cent of them, serious communal riots take place, and when they are more than 35 per cent, there is no place for non-Muslims.”

Satiricus was not surprised to see that the media called this statement a “shocker”. Satiricus too was shocked—but for a different reason. That reason was Adityanath’s awfully shoddy statistics. Clearly this Hindu ignoramus had not been to enlightened America to learn an advanced branch of statistics which can be called ‘Percentage of Muslimness’. Had he done that he would have learnt how ridiculously wrong his percentages were and how carelessly cursory his figures. He could even have earned a Ph. D. in Islamic statistics by reading just one tome—a detailed study of the subject by a US government agency made years ago, titled “CIA : The World Fact Book, 2007”.

What are the facts that this “Fact Book” gives? Here’s Satiricus’s summary : Starting very modestly at the very bottom, at just 1 per cent of the total population of a country, Muslims are a “peace-loving minority” with “colourful uniqueness”—as in Italy (1.5 per cent), Norway (1.8 per cent), Canada (1.9 per cent). At 2 per cent they begin conversions—“from jails and street gangs” (Denmark 2 per cent, Germany 3.7 per cent, Spain 4 per cent). At 5 per cent “they exercise inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage”. (Sweden 5 per cent, Netherlands 5.5 per cent, France 8 per cent.) and demand that “the ruling government allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic law.” When their percentage doubles from 5 to 10, “they will increase lawlessness” to complain about their condition (Paris car-burnings, Amsterdam Mohammed cartoons, Kenya, Guyana, Russia). When there is again a doubling, from 10 to 20 per cent, we can look forward to “hair-trigger rioting and Jihad”. Again double it to 40 per cent, you will find “terror attacks and massacre”, at 60 per cent “ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia law (Malaysia, Qatar, Sudan, Albania).After 80 per cent,“expect state-run ethnic cleansing and genocide” (14 countries including Pakistan and Bangladesh). And finally, at a glorious 100 per cent, “peace of Dar-es-salaam”, House of Peace, because everybody is a Muslim—But is that so? Look at Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and now Iraq. Are there no non-Muslims to kill? Oh well, holy Jihad must continue, so Muslims must kill Muslims.

So how did the BJP leadeer’s hopeless homework compare with these meticulous statistics? Very poorly, no? So the Election Commission was not wrong in considering him a criminal deserving punishment—he was guilty of criminal negligence in figuring out his anti-secular arithmetic.

Dastardly Punditry

SATIRICUS is a reputed retard and a distinguished dimwit, but despite his distinctly dim wit, he was impressed with a recent piece by a pundit of the press in which he castigated Prime Minister Modi for failing to understand the signal significance of the secretary level talks with Pakistan which he cancelled because of the separatists. And what was this significance that the PM missed but the pundit didn’t? It was that “the ‘separatists’, who are Indian citizens, whatever their view, are of such significance as to have warranted our ‘interlocutors’ talking to them,” Now, isn’t that quite clear? Well, not quite, to dumb Satiricus. Not even to Advani, who is far from dumb. Why else would he write a blog not on Indian Geelani but on Anti-Indian Geelani? Another thing Satiricus noticed rather resentfully was the choice of the interlocutors. Why was Satiricus not selected? If a hired journalist was to represent the Government of India, why not Satiricus? He would have been available for a much cheaper fee. He would have joined the other hirelings in supporting and even “enhancing”, as their report put it, Kashmiri separatism. He too could have equally wisely advised—Recognise the “dual” and “special” status of Kashmir; review all laws imposed on Kashmir after 1952; work out a new “compact” with the people of Kashmir (minus the Kashmiri Pundits, of course); and of course respect every right of anti-Indian Indians to go to Pakistan at will and get themselves photographed with Hafiz Saeed, according to whom the recent flood was the dastardly doing of the Indian

Comments are closed here.